Does the Quran Misrepresent Christianity? part 2

Dr. White asks, where does the Qur 'an talk about me? It's pretty clear for anyone who's read the

Qur 'an. Islam states that Allah is one person. Islam states that Christians overpraise

Jesus. Islam states that Jesus was created just like how Adam was created from dust.

Islam states that Allah could destroy Jesus if he wanted to. None of that is speaking to Dr. White? He said the

Qur 'an should say who it's talking about. Why? Why is that relevant? Why should the Qur 'an pinpoint exactly who it is targeting?

Should it name every single individual who's ascribing to a specific heresy or belief? It's condemning a particular belief, and it doesn't have to pinpoint exactly who it is that's holding that belief.

It doesn't have to say, and the Sibyllians said this, and the Unitarians said that, and the

Trinitarians said that, and the Catholics, it doesn't have to name them. It could condemn the belief without saying exactly who it is that ascribes to that belief.

He's saying, well, the Qur 'an said, well, since Allah said Allah is one

God, that means it's accusing the Christians of saying that they believe in three gods.

But, you know, I've already dealt with this in my opening statement. I still did not get a response. The Qur 'an could possibly be speaking by appealing to de facto reality according to it that since God is one person, by default, if you say another person is

God, that is a violation of God's monotheism. It doesn't mean that it has misunderstood your faith.

It's speaking with the assumption of Unitarianism. I'm not here to prove that Unitarianism is true.

And then the necessary conclusion comes about. If Unitarianism is true, then

Trinitarians are polytheists. That is the necessary conclusion. Now, we're not here to discuss whether that's true or not.

But that doesn't mean that Islam has misunderstood Christianity. Then he was saying, so does that mean that Muhammad went to the

New Testament and he understood monophysitism? Well, I mean, obviously from the

Muslim perspective, Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not the author of the Qur 'an. But the point that I'm continuing to stress here is that the

Qur 'an does not only have to be refuting the mainstream view of Christianity. What could be mainstream today could be heretical tomorrow.

What was heretical in the past could be mainstream today. So the Qur 'an is refuting certain beliefs that are out there.

They could either be heretical or they could be mainstream. It doesn't matter. And I also said in my opening statement that there is an important linguistic principle in Arabic that we have to take into consideration.

That if the Qur 'an says, O people of the book, linguistically speaking in Arabic, it doesn't have to refer to every single

Christian literally. Islam recognizes that Christians are divided into different sects. And I cited that tradition to point that out.

Now, the issue of Mary being taken as a god. Now, I said in my opening statement that this could be understood in more than one sense.

And I would like to read out one passage as an example. For example, in Surah 9, verse 31, it says,

They, the Jews and Christians, referring to the Jews and Christians, took their rabbis and their priests to be their lords besides Allah and the

Messiah, son of Mary, while they were commended to worship none but one God. There is no

God but He. Praise and be glory to Him from having partners that they associate. That's what the passage is saying. The passage is saying that Christians took their priests as their lords besides Allah and Jesus.

So does this now mean that we accuse the Qur 'an of saying that the Trinity is composed of Allah, Jesus, plus the element of priests?

Well, of course not. No one has said that because nowhere does the Qur 'an say that. Similarly, we need to be consistent and shouldn't be saying that the

Qur 'an teaches that Mary was part of the Trinity for the simple reason that the Qur 'an nowhere clearly states it. Now, many of you may be wondering, why did the

Qur 'an accuse Christians of taking their priests as lords? When this verse was revealed, a

Christian convert by the name of Adi ibn Hatim was curious and he asked the Prophet Muhammad, that's not true.

I was a Christian. We didn't take our priests as lords. Then the Prophet replied, however, they prohibited what was allowed for them and they allowed what was prohibited for them.

And they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them. So this shows that, it could be a reference to the

Catholics, so this shows that taking someone as a god or as a lord doesn't always have to mean so in a literal sense.

So Mary being taken as a god, just as Professor Dave Thomas said, could refer to the virtual divinization of Mary and not literally being taken as a god.

So it doesn't only have to refer to the Coloridians, it could be a reference to the Catholics. And this also shows that...

Sorry. Thanks. Well, here we get to the heart of it now with cross -examination and we'll begin with James White.

What's our time? Ten minutes. Thank you. Alright, thank you.

Let's go ahead and start with what's fresh in everyone's mind. You just made a reference to a statement that Muhammad could have known of these different sects.

What evidence do you have that Muhammad would have known of different sects of the Al -Kitab or the

Al -Anjil? You mean, is he aware that there were different sects?

Or the details of each sect? You had said that he... He's aware of the different sects. There's a tradition where he says the

Christians were divided into 72 sects. We don't know how he categorized them in detail. But he said that the

Christians were divided into 72 sects. 71 are in the fire. One of them are in paradise.

So that shows that he's aware that you can't paint all Christians with the same brush. So you have hadith.

Does the Qur 'an ever show any evidence of this? The hadith says it, which is authoritative in Islam.

I'm not aware of the Qur 'an saying that. The Qur 'an does not address that. You have said that this would not be...

You disagree with this. But would it not be the easiest way to win the debate or to establish your position to demonstrate that the

Qur 'an does accurately represent what I believe in regards to its assertion that I am a kufr?

Or even... Do you take the position that Christians are Mushrikeen? Yes. So if Christians are

Mushrikeen, kufr, they're going to hell, wouldn't the easiest way to establish your position be to go to the

Qur 'an and say here's where the Qur 'an identifies your belief and here's the text?

Well, you mean you want me to show you a passage where the Qur 'an says this is what mainstream

Christians believe? Well, I'm expecting the name term mainstream. I could infer that the

Qur 'an is addressing you. Is it addressing mainstream Christians? Is it addressing other heretical sects in Christianity?

I could infer that. But just as I won't demand a Christian to show me some explicit statement in the

Bible which states that God is one being and has one essence that is shared by three different persons, that you have the space and the room to try to infer that.

Also, I believe that I have the right to try to infer from the

Qur 'an that it could be addressing mainstream Christians at times. And I gave Surah 1068 as an example.

Or it could be addressing heretical Christian groups. Right. Let me get back to that.

Surah 1068, you actually used the term Allah as one person. Where is that in Surah 1068?

I'm clarifying. I'm qualifying that statement. Because I appealed to the tradition to show that Allah is one person.

But you have to read the Qur 'an taking that assumption into consideration.

You would have to assume that when it says Allah, that it's talking about Allah the one person because Islam teaches

Unitarianism. But you interpreted Surah 1068 being free of need as being, well, this could be understood that Allah is one person, therefore he doesn't have to have other persons, therefore this could have the

Trinity as a background, things like that. Many scholars understood it that way. They said that if Allah had a son who is of the same essence of him, then he would have to rely on the son in order to exist as a father.

So you believe that the Qur 'an actually has that level of understanding of what the doctrine of the Trinity is in a text like Surah 1068.

Therefore, why don't we have specific arguments against what both Catholics and Protestants have historically believed about the

Trinity in the Qur 'an? If it has that level of understanding, shouldn't there be... But as I said, it doesn't have to...

Once Islam has made it clear that Jesus is not God and that Allah is one person, that's an implicit yet very clear denial of the

Trinity. It doesn't have to state, the Trinity is this, but it's wrong because Allah is one person and Jesus is not

God. It could just say, Allah is one person, Jesus is not God, and anyone could infer from that that the

Trinity is wrong. You mentioned Geoffrey Pounder. Yes. Would you accept his views?

Or are you just using him as sort of a source? No, I'm just using him for that citation. Wouldn't you agree that his perspective is pretty much that you could interpret the

Qur 'an in many different ways? You don't believe that it can be. He doesn't interpret it within the context of the

Sunnah. The people that I cite, I don't necessarily agree with their methodology.

I'm quoting non -Muslims who don't believe that Islam is true. If I see them making a specific point that I agree with and does not contradict what

I believe and actually makes pretty good sense, then I would cite him. You just said just a moment ago that you said,

Dr. White asks where the Qur 'an addresses him. Well, it says that Christians over -exalt Jesus. What reference, if that's not

Surah 4 and 5, which I likewise cited, and Surah 4 and 5? Is that ta 'alu?

You're talking about ta 'alu there? I was actually referring to a hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,

Book 55, narrated Omar, I heard the Prophet saying, Do not exaggerate in praising me as the

Christians praise the Son of Mary. I had that in mind. But isn't that also ta 'alu? I think the word is ta 'alu.

It comes from the word ghalu, which is extremism. So, yeah, exaggerate.

Isn't that in Surah 4, 171? Yeah. Which is one of the texts that talks about the three. So, do you believe that the texts that I went through in Surah 4, 171 are talking about Christians?

I believe that it is. I agree with the majority of scholars that it's referring to the three

Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'll take that view. And I'm also open to the view of Quranic commentators

Ibn Atiyah and Al -Qummi. They said, Does it only have to be referring to the three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

It could also refer to those Gnostic heresies in the past, like God the Father, Logos the Son, Sophia the

Mother, or Essence Knowledge and Life, or whatnot. So, they see that it's open to encompass all the different groups that would say something about the three.

Would you agree that the vast majority of the non -Islamic scholars that you cited would disagree that Muhammad would have had encounters with people that had those viewpoints that you just mentioned?

Yeah, I'm sure. But since I'm a Muslim, I believe that it's coming from God. Okay, alright. I don't believe he obtained the knowledge naturally.

I understand your perspective. Right, yeah. I'm looking for that consistency. Surah 573. They have certainly disbelieved.

Kafara. Kafara. Who say, Allah is the third of three. Who is that?

Those who have disbelieved who have said Allah is the third of three. It doesn't identify who.

It doesn't name that group. If I read it, I'm going to focus on the belief and the condemnation of the belief.

I'm not concerned with which group adhere to that belief. So how can you interpret the meaning of the phrase

Allah is the third of three if you don't know who it is that said it? Because I mean, even today, have you ever talked to a

Mormon? No. You've never talked to a Mormon. I'll send somebody. Give me your address.

That'd be sort of fun to watch. Can I come along and listen? Sure. I'll tape it for you. Please do.

I'll live stream it. Yeah, live stream it. But are you familiar with their beliefs at all? I know certain elements but not...

They're extreme polytheists. And I know... They're extreme polytheists. Way, way out there. So what a

Mormon would mean by third of three or even the word three would be completely different than what

I would mean. So are you saying that the words third of three cannot...

You can't identify what that means? From the Quran? Yeah, I mean, we would obviously have to put an effort into interpreting that.

I mean, it's not explicitly making it clear. Now, that's something that I'm open to. And the scholars did.

The minority opinion... There are scholars who took the opinion that it's Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

And that's something I'm going to deny. But the vast majority said that it's referring to the three divine persons.

Now, what I said was that... Now, just because it's a minority opinion, I'm not saying it's wrong. But we could be...

But what we could do is that we could see that it's not explicitly identifying what it is.

And so we don't have any right to say that it has misunderstood Christianity. Now...

Sorry, go ahead. But when it says, and there is no God except one God, if you follow after the statement of the three with the statement, there is no

God but one God, do you understand why someone like myself, who is being condemned by many as going to hell for believing this, would want to have some meaningful level of specificity here to know what it really means?

That it sounds like it's talking about three gods? Why does it say there's one God right after that?

Because it's speaking with the assumption of Unitarianism. So you could interpret that as saying that they have disbelieved those who have said that Allah is one out of three persons in the

Godhead, yet there is only one God. So our understanding of one

God is actually one person. Okay, I'm going to start it now.

Why do you expect the Quran... Do you expect the Quran to only attack the mainstream Christian view?

Do I expect the Quran to only attack the mainstream Christian view? I would assume that if the Quran is the word of God, that it's going to have meaning when it was revealed when

Muhammad recited it. And as far as I can tell, the people, the al -alijjil that he addresses were people who believe what

I believe in regards to this subject, the relationship of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And since that, for different reasons, is the belief of all the mainstream

Protestant groups and all the Roman Catholic groups, then yes, I would expect that if it was going to address someone other than us, it would have to in some way make that kind of differentiation, just as when you address

Ahmadi or something like that, you would make that delineation as well. Why can't the Quran be refuting and addressing different beliefs, and then it could be up to us to try to figure out who it's referring to?

If it's Mubinun, I would imagine that it would explain those things to us. And I'm not sure that Surah 3 -7 is really being used properly to say that, well, we can just divide these and these are unclear verses.

Because as I understand it, Surah 5 -75 specifically says, look how we make clear to them the signs.

And so if this is a clear giving of Ayat, and it's specifically talking about the

Messiah, I cannot see how anyone can interpret this as it would make

Muhammad, it would take Muhammad out of his historical context and say, eh, whatever he said, the people of his day didn't matter.

They would have no idea what he was talking about. They would just consider him a babbler. I don't see that even he interpreted it that way.

He expected the people in his day to hear what he was saying and follow him and believe what he was saying. Am I misinterpreting the

Hadith at that point? You can't ask me. Oh, I'm sorry. That is rhetorical. That was a rhetorical question.

My apologies. There was a big pause after that. And he is a Sunni Muslim. I just wanted to clarify that as well.

I found it interesting because you said that if the Quran was mubeen, clear,

I would expect it to identify who it's speaking about. So that means that you're against Islam talking about certain things and then we could go and do the effort to try to figure out further details by appealing to external sources?

Well, it does sound to me like what you're saying is that the Quran in and of itself is insufficient to define its own meaning.

And if that's what you're saying, great, that's fine as long as we lay that out.

But in essence, in answering your question, if the Quran is going to address particular variant beliefs,

I would expect that since it's the final revelation, it would at least do so with a level of clarity that would be equal to if not greater than my own scriptures do, which are said to be not solved, to be sent down.

And so since when the Apostle Paul addressed proto -Gnosticism in the Book of Colossians, he uses their own language.

John does the same thing in 1 John. I would assume that the Quran would have the same ability to give us a level of specificity at least equal to, if not greater than, given that it's supposed to be the final revelation.

Yeah, sorry if I appear a little argumentative. This is the time when you're supposed to be argumentative.

Go for it. I just want to press you a little further on that point because I'm finding it difficult to see how the

Quran could be addressing different heretical beliefs and because look, the

Quran is a comprehensive book and it doesn't have to delve into all the details which are not necessary.

So is it possible that the Quran could make itself clear that Allah is one person and then refute a different set of beliefs and then say, hey, it's up to you if you want to figure out which heretical group adhere to this belief that I'm condemning or that belief that I'm condemning but please note that these beliefs are wrong and I'm condemning them.

Is it possible that the Quran could be clear and have that method and approach? Well, the problem is the text that we have been looking at actually quote the people that are being identified as Kufrs and as Mushrikim and quotes them and I would assume that if it's going to quote what they're actually saying you'd be able to find someone who actually said it.

So what are you saying that no one has ever said before? What am

I saying? I'm not saying anything. No, because you just said No, what I'm saying is that the representation in Surahs 4 and 5 of what it is that the

Al -Kitab allegedly are saying is not what they say. I mean,

I don't... Okay, alright. Why are you against... because in my opening statement

I said, like for example I gave an example from John 8, 44 where Jesus told the

Jews and you want to follow your father's desires referring to the devil and that, you know

Jesus is speaking based on by de facto reality not that the Jews are saying yeah, we want to follow the devil.

So why can't we also understand these passages in that manner as well?

That the Quran is not saying that you're saying that you believe in three gods but that by the assumption of Unitarianism by de facto reality according to the

Quran you're pretty much saying three gods. Two things. I think that's a misuse of John 8 because what

Jesus is doing is he is identifying the source of their desires to be demonic. He's not saying that they are the offspring of Satan but he is saying that they are opposing the very one that God has sent.

And so it is not a parallel to the Quran saying these people disbelieve when they say these things and there is the punishment.

So he is actually condemning them and he's not condemning what they believe. They believe in one true God. They all said

Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh our God. He was condemning the fact that they were hypocrites.

And secondly in the second part if I with the presupposition of Trinitarianism can accurately represent what you believe as a

Unitarian why can't the Quran with its presupposition of Unitarianism accurately at least represent and then refute what

I believe as a Trinitarian. Just simply assuming How would you want the Quran to define the

Trinity? How would I like to define the Trinity? Something other than polytheism. And something other than again because I really do

I don't think Bassam that you've said that each one of the texts that I cited might be interpreted this way or might be interpreted that way.

But I think I've presented a pretty strong case that there is a thread all the way from the earliest portions of the

Quran through to the end in reference to this idea of Allah being exalted above having a son that finds its final statement

I believe in the third ayah of Surah Tali Klas. And if that's the case then you just simply have to say no.

You cannot find a single thread of belief through the Quran. If you're saying that then we need to say that openly.

I most Muslims I know would say yes there are those types of threads in the Quran. Tell me why do you why would you see it as inconsistent if Surah 5 would have in one area condemning the belief of Mary being taken as a god and in another area condemning the trinity and making those as two separate themes.

Okay. Tell me how you define consistency. Fair question. We looked at Surah 5 we looked at 15 through 18 72 through 77 and 116 and 117.

Now if the context gave us reason to see that there has been a shift in subject that would be wonderful.

But that's one of the problems that's one of the reasons I don't believe that the Quran is Mubinun because it doesn't give that kind of indication and instead what we have is in text like this when you have in verse 72 the third of three and the only place where the

Quran ever identifies three who are the object of worship because isn't that what disbelief is?

What is Jesus asked by Allah on the day of judgment? Did you say to men take me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?

What does derogation of Allah mean? If it is not in reference to worship. So what's the one place in all of the

Quran where we have three objects of worship identified and condemned but Surah 5, verse 116.

When you combine that with the argumentation of Surah 5, verse 75 about the signs and the clarity am

I the first one who has put these together and seen them as consistent? I think you've already said there are

Muslims who have understood this way. Yes? I'm sorry. It's rhetorical. We have 15 seconds.

It's up to you two. Get the question out. How do you understand the word sahiba, consort in Surah 6, verse 101?

Well, you know, it's interesting. I see it in the exact same context as the earlier text I say and I don't have it up right now but when it talks about the wife it seems to me that in light of 5, verse 116 and 114, verse 3 that it is the idea that the nature of sonship in the mind of the author is one of generation and that was in the pagan religions and it seems to me that he feels that the

Christians also hold the same thing. I see no evidence in the Quran of any understanding of what we believe that the son has eternally been the son of God not due to generation in the sense of in time.

Thanks. Well, just as it's starting to get good we have to begin to wind down so we have from each of the debaters 10 minutes of concluding statements and I just wanted to let you know that following the debate they'd be happy to talk to you.

Of course, respecting their time they'll want to be home well, this side of midnight

I'm sure but we're looking forward to having them stay around a little bit and hope you can as well.

So let's begin with James White and 10 minutes of his concluding remarks. Well, first of all, let me thank you all for having come out this evening for our debate.

I very much appreciate the fact that we have a full house. I thank all those who have been listening and watching literally all around the world and those who made that possible and, of course, mainly many thanks to the

Psalms Awadi for coming out this evening and engaging in this very useful debate and, of course, Doug McMasters and the folks here at Trinity Road Chapel.

This is the third time they've opened it up. May I throw out an invitation to all my

London Muslim friends. We have two of my former debate partners over here,

Abdullah Al -Andalusi and Sami Zatari. He's waving.

You know what I'd like to do? I'd like to do this in an

Islamic place sometime. You all are here from London. The challenge is to you.

We've opened it up to you. Now I say to you, let's have a debate at an Islamic center or something like that so that it's fair.

I mean, wouldn't that be fair? I think that's... Wouldn't that be fair? That's right. All right. Let's see if we can arrange that.

I'm hoping to come back in April of 2012 unless Harold Camping is right and then none of us are going to be here anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Yeah. He'll come up with one. Trust me. Anyway, thank you for being here this evening. I hope you have heard that this is an important debate and I hope you have heard my heart in this.

No one sitting here, I think, can honestly say that I came in here this evening trying to gotcha

Basam Zawadi. I didn't. I wasn't trying to find some special question to ask or trip him up with something like that.

He knew where I was going. He knew exactly what text I was going to talk about. My desire for this debate was for there to be clarity on what the

Quran says and what it doesn't say. And it sounds to me like you have two very different perspectives this evening.

I have tried as honestly as I could and I know some of you don't believe me along those lines but I have tried as honestly as I could to look at what the

Quran says and take it in its original context and say there's the language. Here is this thread about Allah not having a son,

Allah not having a wife, Allah not having a consort. From the beginning to the end, it's right there.

It comes to its fullest expression in the third ayah of Surah Al -Ikhlas, Surah 112.

So it seems to me that I'm saying that if you look at the Quran as a whole and allow the

Quran to define its own language, it's saying these things about Christians and therefore the author, and this is what many scholars have come to the conclusion over the years, the author of the

Quran did not understand what I believe because that's not what we say. We don't say a third of three. We don't say three gods.

It's not polytheism. None of these things. And yet I'm condemned to hell. I am said to be deluded on the basis of representations of my faith that I've never made and that no one in that day made either.

But what has been the answer? The only way I can understand Basam's position is that well, in every one of these instances, in every one of these verses where you can make an accusation that the author does not understand the position being addressed, well, maybe it's not your position.

Maybe this is about the monophysites and maybe this is about the Coloridians and maybe this is about something we don't even know about, but when

I've asked specific questions, what has been the response? Well, we don't know.

We might have to do some studying and then some certain scholars say this and some certain scholars say that and you know what?

When I'm out on the street talking to, well, some of you, you don't seem to lack the kind of certainty that we've heard this evening.

You seem to know very clearly. And what I was trying to ask Basam, and I guess I didn't ask it clearly enough, was look, if you can say, well, of course the

Qur 'an addresses you. It says you over -exalt Jesus. Well, where is that? Well, there are places in the Qur 'an where it talks about over -exalting, going beyond the bounds, committing excess in your fidinikum, in your religion, but those are the very same texts that contain misrepresentations of what

I believe. So he went to the Hadith for that. Wouldn't the Hadith be interpreted in light of the

Qur 'an and the Qur 'an statement of this? Where does the Qur 'an accurately represent what the

Christians of Muhammad's day, the man that he said in Surah 547, O people of the

Gospel, judge by what is contained therein.

How do you do that? That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to judge on the basis of the

Gospel, the Gospel that would have been the possession of believers in that day, and I believe what they believed about the doctrine of the

Trinity, and yet when I look at what the Qur 'an says about my faith, that's not what I believe.

And I return to the question I asked you originally. If a religion came along that had to keep saying, well, yes, you're condemned to hell,

Muslims, Tawhid is wrong, but no, our sacred text never mentions it, but it's wrong anyways, and yeah, our sacred text says things that you don't really say, but it might be about some variant group.

Maybe it's about the Ahmadi or Druze or somebody like that. Well, where does it actually talk about us,

Muslims? Well, it doesn't, but it's still clear, and you're still condemned. O people of the

Scripture, Surah 4171, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth.

It literally says, say nothing, say about Allah nothing but the truth.

Well, that's what we want to do. And long before Muhammad came along, we believed that God had revealed the truth in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit of God. I never find any reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the

Qur 'an. Nowhere. I do have one reference. I've read certain people's papers.

I do have one reference. Well, he's a spirit from God, so the spirit's mentioned there, and God's mentioned there, but that's,

I think you're stretching it a big time to find in that a reference to the three persons of the trinity. I know later scholars started reading that, and once they found out what

Christians believe, but where is it in the Qur 'an when it goes on to say the

Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and Azul, and his word which he directed to Mary, and a soul created the command from him, so believe in Allah and his messengers, and do not say three, desist, it is better for you.

I stand back and say, who was saying that in the context of Muhammad's day?

Did these words have no meaning then? When it says, do not say, did that not have meaning when

Muhammad was alive? If it's about some group that's passed away, how is that relevant?

And if this is meant to be a word for all peoples, and all nations, and all times, didn't

Allah know? I mean, let's face it, from the conservative Sunni perspective, what is the greatest source of acts of shirk in the world today?

Christianity. Allah didn't know that. And if the

Qur 'an is supposed to be a word for today, have relevance today, and yet it never actually says anything about what we ourselves believe, the main source of shirk?

Now of course, I've argued before, and I don't see Adnan Rashid here this evening, but I argued in a debate against Adnan, that that's a misunderstanding of what we believe in the first place, but as the psalmist said, that's not the debate for this evening.

It's a good debate though. It's an important debate, because that's not what we do.

We only worship one God, we associate no one with him. I'm consistent at that point.

And so, the answer to the question tonight really boils down to, is the

Qur 'an sufficient to even answer the question tonight? And what

I've heard from Bassam, I'll be perfectly honest with you, is well, we have certain basic principles that are clear.

Unitarianism, Unitarianism is clear, therefore Trinitarianism must be wrong.

You see, I've debated Unitarians, and please do not be offended by this, hear the argument here.

Unitarians attack the Trinity far better than the Qur 'an does. So if sinful, limited human beings,

I just did a debate on the Jewish Voice broadcast, me and Michael Brown versus two Unitarians, one of them from London.

If sinful, limited human beings as Unitarians can attack the

Trinity with clarity of expression, why can't the

Qur 'an? That's the question. That's what you need to go home this evening and consider, is that if this is a

Mubinun revelation, why doesn't it address this issue with clarity?

I think it does. It just does so in a way that demonstrates that its author does not understand the

Trinity, and therefore its author is not God. That's the conclusion we have. Thank you very much.

I really do appreciate

Bassam coming this evening. I'm not trying to interrupt you, but I forgot to do something. It has become my tradition here at Trinity Road Chapel to give a gift showing my esteem for those that I've debated.

Besides, Abdullah would never let you get away with it if I didn't give you something. He'd say, hey, he gave me something. You probably have a copy of my book,

The Forgotten Trinity. I don't, actually. Thanks. I wanted to give him as well, this is one of the best resources

I've found for New Testament study. This is a New English translation, NA 27 Diglot, with all the textual data and appendices in the back.

It's a library in one volume. Thanks a lot. I hope you will read it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just like Dr.

White, I would really like to thank all of you for coming here today. Especially like to thank Pastor Doug. If it wasn't for you, this wouldn't have happened.

And obviously, Dr. White, thank you so much for coming and thanks for the books. I'd like to start where Dr.

White left off. He's like, Unitarians argue against the Trinity better than the

Quran. Well, William Lane Craig refutes atheism better than the Bible, so, so what?

I mean, the point is that the Quran or the Bible could lay out certain concepts and views and beliefs and it could be up to us to further develop them according to certain people and we could articulate them in our own different ways.

So, the Quran does not have to refute the Trinity better than anyone.

It could give the substance of the argument and then it could be up to us to further elaborate and articulate it.

It appears that Dr. White really has, is really stressing on the importance that the

Quran identifies the group of whom it is condemning.

In Surah 572, it could be condemning the civilians, so it has to mention the name of the civilians. Or in 573, it could be condemning mainstream.

It has to say mainstream. That is not necessary. What I have to know as a believer is to stay away from these beliefs.

It's not my concern to know who exactly held these beliefs. What matters to me is that I should stay away from them.

Now, Dr. White is saying that contradicts the Quran being clear. How far do you want to go with that?

The Quran does not explain everything. It doesn't explain quantum mechanics, for instance.

It's sufficient and clear based on the stuff that you need to know in order to secure your salvation.

In order for me to secure my salvation, I know that I need to stay away from these beliefs. So the question here that you would be concerned with is does

Islam make it clear to the Muslim that he should avoid the trinity, that he should avoid believing in a

God who has one essence that is shared by three different persons? Yes, Islam makes it clear that we should stay away from that.

It says that Allah is one person. It says that Jesus is not God. What more do

I need to know? Do I really need to get into the scholastic and Aristotelian terminology that Christian philosophers use and so on and so forth?

I don't need to go into that detail. That's not necessary. Now, Dr.

White said nowhere else does the Quran identify a three except in Surah 5, 1, 1, 6 as Allah, Jesus, and Mary.

Well, I mean, I could play devil's advocate with my own scripture and say, well, no, I just read out to you

Surah 9, 31. It says that the Christians took their priests as lords alongside with Allah and Jesus.

If I want to play devil's advocate, I could say, well, maybe the three it was referring to was Allah, Jesus, and priesthood, the element of priests.

I could do that, but it's not clearly saying that, and it's also not clearly saying that Mary is one of three.

Just because it's possible that it could be interpreted that way, that doesn't mean that it should be interpreted that way.

Hey, I'm all for admitting that James White's interpretation is technically possible.

It is technically possible to interpret the Quran as saying that Mary is one of the three, but it doesn't say that.

It doesn't explicitly say that. That's what I was looking for from Dr. White today. He's holding that affirmative option today.

Has Islam misunderstood Christianity? Dr. White is saying, yes. I'm asking, show me where clearly.

Are you saying probably, most likely, certainly it has misunderstood?

You know, I didn't feel it coming out clearly from Dr. White. Dr. White is also against a chapter talking about two different themes.

He sees it to be inconsistent that the Quran in one place talks about three, and then in another area, talking about Mary being taken as a god, and yet not connecting the two together.

Until now, honestly, sincerely speaking, I still can't understand why that is considered inconsistent.

Why can't a certain chapter of the Quran talk about two different themes? Why can't the Quran in one area be talking about the trinity, and then another area talking about Mary being treated as a god?

I'm still having difficulty trying to figure out what the argument is there. Dr. White, it's been a tradition for Dr.

White to bring up Surah 547 in his debates, where it says that Christians should judge by the gospel.

I want to use this opportunity to clarify what that passage is really saying. Now, Surah 547, when it says that Christians should judge by the gospel, it needs to be read in its proper context.

One needs to understand how the Quran uses the word gospel. It needs to bear in mind the fact that the early

Muslims did not believe or understand the Quran to be saying that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are inspired.

One should also read Quranic passages such as 2, 185, and 568, which illustrate that the

Quran is to be followed by everyone, including Christians. The same verse that is being alluded to,

Surah 547, itself continues on to say, he only quoted the first half, it goes on to say, whoever does not judge by what

Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors, which is a general statement that one must judge by all revelations sent down by God, including the

Quran. If one refers to the understanding of the early Muslims, one would observe that the correct understanding of the verses from the

Quran, which command the Jews and Christians to judge by the Torah and the Gospel, respectively, actually means that they must judge by the

Quran, since this is the only way to really judge by the Torah and Gospel sent to Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them both, respectively.

For those original revelations taught the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, according to Islam. Therefore, to judge by them means that you must accept the prophethood of Muhammad, peace be upon him, which in turn means that you must then accept the

Quran as the word of God and judge by it. So that is the correct understanding of Surah 547.

It's not, okay, it's telling me to judge by the Gospel, let me go to what Matthew says and what

Luke says. That's not what it means. And since we're giving gifts, I also got a book for Dr.

White. It's called The Methodology of Quranic Explanation by Dr. Abu Amin Abilal Phillips.

I think it's a very good book. It talks about the methodology of how to explain the

Quran and interpret the Quran. And I think Dr. White would benefit greatly from it. Thank you. So it's my hope that this debate has stimulated you and encouraged you to not only put the effort in studying your own faith carefully, but also those of the people of other faiths with whom you engage with.

Understanding each other's perspectives is a crucial factor to any successful dialogue and conversation.

And I pray that Muslims and Christians, in particular, continue to have and improve upon having such fruitful discussions.

Thank you so much for being here. Thanks. Well, let's take an opportunity to thank both

James White and Bassam Zawadi for the debate that we've had this evening, shall we? And I want to thank all of you for your attention and just the honorable way in which you've conducted yourself this evening.

It is a great testimony to this evening, which we wanted to have intellectually rigorous and yet respectful.